INSULATING THE POLICE FROM ILLEGITIMATE POLITICAL CONTROL
Mr. P.C. Chidambaram’s recent counsel to the heads of police forces to raise their voice against arbitrary postings and frequent transfers of police officers done by the state governments once again brings into focus the important question of how the police should be controlled and governed.
The fact that the quality of political control exercised over the police in this country is poor and that this has led to gross abuses is fairly well recognized. It has resulted in subverting the rule of law and obstructing the growth of a professionally healthy system of policing. Almost all state police commissions and the National Police Commission have found overwhelming evidence of misuse of police system by the politicians for narrow selfish ends. Innumerable examples can also be cited from recent history to show how the police have either remained silent spectators to incidents involving major violations of law or not discharged their responsibility of investigating cases in an impartial manner to protect the interests of party or people in power.
The excessive use of the police for partisan interests in this country has led many to advocate the concept of police independence and this is where the debate on the subject has assumed a highly unrealistic tone.
There is no country in the entire world and there has never been one in the history of mankind where the police have been completely freed from political control. Total divorce between politics and policing is neither feasible nor desirable.
The police enjoy awesome powers, which must be controlled to prevent their misuse. Since controlling the police itself becomes a source of tremendous power that can be misused to serve partisan interests, the important question is how to balance these two apparently conflicting objectives?
Long ago the National Police Commission made some recommendations to deal with this problem, which were later reiterated by the Supreme Court in its judgment of September 26, 2006. Unfortunately, there has been considerable misunderstanding about the recommendations of the NPC. It’s most important recommendation about the constitution of a State Security Commission (SSC) was wrongly interpreted to mean that the SSC would substitute the state government in exercising control over the police force. The NPC never made this recommendation. All that the NPC recommended was to “lay down that the power of superintendence of the State Government over the Police should be limited for the purpose of ensuring that police performance is in strict accordance with law.” and that the SSC would “help the State Government to discharge this superintending responsibility in an open manner under the framework of law.”
The way the package of reform has been interpreted, the initiatives taken so far have failed to make a significant impact. What is required is to convey the idea that police reform does not mean removing the control of the political executive over police; it aims only at ensuring that control is exercised legitimately and for the public good.
The problem of illegitimate political control over the police has been faced in advanced western countries too. They have taken the help of law to set up new mechanisms and arrangements to ensure that control exercised over the police is legitimate. We can learn some lessons from them.
For instance, one can emulate the British example where a very subtle distinction has been made between the police as an organisation and policing as a set of functions or activities. While it is the responsibility of the government to formulate policies, set standards, monitor performance and provide money and other resources to the police, it has no authority to give directions about police operations. This is strictly the preserve of the chief of police. This type of distinction between policy formulation and operational directions, though thin, can be made. The Police Act can define the word ‘superintendence’ to highlight this division of powers and responsibilities.
Law should further define clearly the roles and responsibilities of different agencies controlling the police. Broadly speaking, all over the world, there are three agencies that are involved or have a say in exercising control over the police. These are (i) the government, (ii) the police and (iii) the community. If the law can define the role and responsibilities of all the three agencies, a part of the problem will be over. The Police Act of UK does it very well. Another example of clear definition of role is the Police Act of Queens Land in Australia. Under this law, the communication between the Minister and the Commissioner of Police is clearly defined in the Police Act. Areas where the Minister is authorised to give directions to the police are mentioned in the Act. Directions from the Minister have to be in writing and the COP is bound to comply with the directions, but keep a record of all that is received.
There are two other problem areas. One is about the appointment and removal of the head of the police force. The right of the government to appoint the head of the police force is recognised almost all over the world. However, in some foreign countries, they have taken important statutory steps to cut down the government’s discretion in such cases. One, the process of selection for final appointment of the police chief is not confined merely to the government; it involves other parties too. Two, law lays down the criteria that should govern the choice and prescribes the procedure for appointment and also of removal.
The other problem area is the arbitrary and frequent postings and transfers of police officers. The proposed Police Establishment Board, even if established, would deal with the postings of lower ranks in the police; officers’ postings would remain with the government. This problem is not amenable to easy solution as the state governments justify frequent transfers on the ground of administrative expediency. What is required is for the civil society to set up pressure groups and mechanisms that help in ensuring that the government frames policies based on acceptable standards and norms and is not allowed to get away with violations. This type of pressure has been seen whenever some good officers have been posted out of districts or other places of posting.
Some of these ideas may look or sound utopian, but the experience of some other countries shows that such steps do help in bringing about police reform.
